[Taxacom] =?utf-8?q?Nonsense_in_ZooKeys_=28photo_based_taxonomy_a?= =?utf-8?q?gain=29?=

Sun Aug 27 23:38:29 CDT 2017

It seems to me that the authors took nom. nudum for nom. dubium.

OK, thet were not experts in the ICZN particular statements - but what about peer reviewers? Does SooKey practicize such reviewing?

I'm sorry I didn't read the paper in quesiton, so I am not sure which particular "typeless species" are/is meant. However, as far as  I know, absence of type fixation for species-group taxa is mandatory since 1999 according to Art. 16, so violation of this condition makes a new name unavailable.

Igor
- - -
Igor Ya. Pavlinov, DrS
Zoological Museum of Lomonosov Moscow State University
ul. Bol'shaya Nikitskaya 6
125009 Moscow 
Russia
http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/pavlinov_eng1.htm

>Понедельник, 28 августа 2017, 3:25 +03:00 от Stephen Thorpe <stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz>:
>
>Here you go Ray:  https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/10945/
>
>The public (of Russia) has paid to make this garbage open access! 'This work [garbage] was financially supported by the Russian Scientific Fund (project No. 14-50-00029, “Scientific bases of the national biobank, the depository of living systems”)'
>
>If only we could get public funding for our garbage, eh Ray! :)
>
>Stephen
>
>--------------------------------------------
>On Mon, 28/8/17, Raymond Hoser - The Snakeman < viper007 at live.com.au > wrote:
>
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Nonsense in ZooKeys (photo based taxonomy again)
> To: " taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu " < taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu >, " neale at bishopmuseum.org " < neale at bishopmuseum.org >, "Stephen Thorpe" < stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz >
> Cc: " penev at pensoft.net " < penev at pensoft.net >
> Received: Monday, 28 August, 2017, 11:45 AM
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen (your comment below makes sense), but can you
> please provide a link to the paper so I can look at the
> rest.
> Thanks
> Raymond Hoser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snakebusters -
> Australia's best reptiles shows.
> 
> Reptile parties,
> events, courses, wildlife conservation and education.
> 
> Phones: 
> 
> 1300 1 SNAKE (1300 176253)
> 
> 9812 3322
> 
> 0412 777 211
> 
>  http://www.snakebusters.com.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: Taxacom
> < taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu > on behalf of
> Stephen Thorpe < stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz >
> 
> Sent: Monday, 28 August 2017 6:44 AM
> 
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu;
>  neale at bishopmuseum.org
> 
> Cc:  penev at pensoft.net
> 
> Subject: [Taxacom] Nonsense in ZooKeys (photo based
> taxonomy again)
>  
> 
> 
> 
> An article was published a few
> days ago in ZooKeys, on the subject of photo based taxonomy.
> From the abstract:
> 
> 
> 
> 'If a taxonomist has omitted to compare the new typeless
> species with the known species externally similar to it, the
> latter cannot be diagnosed and its name in that case becomes
> nomen nudum.'
> 
> 
> 
> Presumably they mean the FORMER cannot be diagnosed. By
> "typeless species", they just mean no preserved
> specimen as type. Anyway, it seems that they have made a
> rather creative interpretation of Article 13.1.1.
> 
> 
> 
> 13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that
> states in words characters that are purported to
> differentiate the taxon
> 
> 
> 
> The authors pontificate thusly (and erroneously): 
> 
> 
> 
> 'So, when describing a new typeless species a specialist
> should differentiate it from all the species described
> earlier. If the taxonomist in the differential diagnosis
> misses the comparison to a known species with which a
> typeless species is similar externally,
>  the latter cannot be diagnosed on any account, and
> therefore its name falls under the definition of nomen
> nudum. Once again, we need to emphasize that nomen nudum
> here would be the result of nonprofessional actions of the
> taxonomist, who should have formally
>  approached the task of comparison of typeless species to
> the closely related species described earlier'
> 
> 
> 
> The authors have just ignored the term 'purported'.
> Clearly it means 'purported by the authors of the new
> taxon', not 'purported by consensus of experts in
> the group'! Missing a character(s) which actually does
> differentiate a new taxon obviously does not invalidate
>  the description (nomen nudum). At worst, it may lead to a
> nomen dubium. Clearly, there is no requirement in the Code
> to EXPLICITLY compare a purported new taxon with all known
> relatives! One simply has to specify characters which one
> thinks uniquely diagnoses
>  the purported new taxon.
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone can make much sense of the rest of the article,
> which reads like jibberish to me, then I'd be very
> interested to hear it!
> 
> 
> 
> Let's stop filling the world scientific literature with
> nonsense, shall we?
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
> 
>  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at: 
>  http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> 
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to
>  taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit: 
>  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>  taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> 
> 
> 
> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some
> Years, 1987-2017.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>_______________________________________________
>Taxacom Mailing List
>Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:  http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
>Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to  taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:  http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>You can reach the person managing the list at:  taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>
>Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.